Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[Deborah]

The ignorance and bias of the critics amazes me. The nastiness of their charges against the prophets amazes me as well as the hypocrisy. I've asked several times if these people would condemn Abraham as they have Joseph and the saints, but they always ignore that question.

And then this idea that we've evolved so we can have a more spiritual connection with one person and only one person. How childish that is to think that eternal love is so limited that it cannot encompass others. Our idea of love in this life is very immature. The closest we come to understand true unconditional love is with our children. When we can love everyone with that compassion and protective encircling love then we can understand something of what God feels for all of us. And we will also understand that love like that is not confined to one person and one person only. Surely we love all our children equally and treat them all with respect and fairness (not necessarily equally because they all have different needs). I do not understand how it can then be assumed that if you love other adults you won't do the same.

[docrick]

The ignorance and bias of the critics amazes me. The nastiness of their charges against the prophets amazes me as well as the hypocrisy. I've asked several times if these people would condemn Abraham as they have Joseph and the saints, but they always ignore that question.

And then this idea that we've evolved so we can have a more spiritual connection with one person and only one person. How childish that is to think that eternal love is so limited that it cannot encompass others. Our idea of love in this life is very immature. The closest we come to understand true unconditional love is with our children. When we can love everyone with that compassion and protective encircling love then we can understand something of what God feels for all of us. And we will also understand that love like that is not confined to one person and one person only. Surely we love all our children equally and treat them all with respect and fairness (not necessarily equally because they all have different needs). I do not understand how it can then be assumed that if you love other adults you won't do the same.

Deborah, I think the original question I asked was answered. From reading the "critics" posts it is clear that the reason plural marriage is vilified in the USA is due to "the philosophy of men mingled with scripture"

I am completely content with this finding. These people that condemn Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others for practicing plural marriage like father Abraham, are complete hypocrites and they've all been exposed.

If they were not hypocrites they would come out and answer your question about Abraham. They cannot answer that question without destroying their faith in "Abraham as a man of God"; thus they duck and avoid. If they do not condemn Abraham they therefore cannot condemn the early saints for the limited practice of plural marriage.

[Chaos]

Everyone clean it up. Start acting respectful and non-judgemental or the thread will be closed down.

[Calm]

And then this idea that we've evolved so we can have a more spiritual connection with one person and only one person. How childish that is to think that eternal love is so limited that it cannot encompass others. Our idea of love in this life is very immature. The closest we come to understand true unconditional love is with our children. When we can love everyone with that compassion and protective encircling love then we can understand something of what God feels for all of us. And we will also understand that love like that is not confined to one person and one person only. Surely we love all our children equally and treat them all with respect and fairness (not necessarily equally because they all have different needs). I do not understand how it can then be assumed that if you love other adults you won't do the same.

What is interesting to me is that in all other relationships, the more 'evolved' position is expansive, eg. getting rid of the us vs. them mentality, opening your hearts to help those and love those outside of your family, your friends, your community and your country.

In this one case only, the more 'evolved' position is a narrower relationship, limiting it to solely one person even though the capacity to love more than one person in that intimate way is admitted, just not acceptable at the same time.

Not very sensible to me.

[johnny]

docrick,

If they were not hypocrites they would come out and answer your question about Abraham.

Abraham was part of a different dispensation and a different covenant.

Christ came to promulgate a new covenant more perfect than the old.

In the Old Testament God polygamy tolerated the practice of polygamy.

The unity of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law.

From the beginning it has been "one wife" ... the two shall be one flesh.

Gen.2

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The following article says:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamyâ??jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritismâ??as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29â??30, 1 Sam. 1).

The problems were so clearly recognized that, even if there was not then a flat-out prohibition on the practice, there had to be special legislation concerning polygamy. Thus a husband playing favorites among his wives was not allowed to deprive the children of his first wife their inheritance rights in favor of the children of a more recent wife (Deut. 21:15â??16). Kings in particular were forbidden to multiply wives to themselves (Deut. 17:17). Unfortunately, this prohibition was often not followed.

As time progressed, the problems with polygamy became more and more obvious, and it stopped being practiced.

The clincher came in the time of Christ, when Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2. Thus Jesus prohibits divorce (Mark 10:2â??9) on the grounds that it was not provided for in Godâ??s original plan. God made one man and one woman to be together. Polygamy is ruled out by the same logic. Godâ??s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time.

[docrick]

docrick,

Abraham was part of a different dispensation and a different covenant.

Christ came to promulgate a new covenant more perfect than the old.

In the Old Testament God polygamy tolerated the practice of polygamy.

The unity of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law.

From the beginning it has been "one wife" ... the two shall be one flesh.

Gen.2

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The following article says:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamyâ??jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritismâ??as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29â??30, 1 Sam. 1).

The problems were so clearly recognized that, even if there was not then a flat-out prohibition on the practice, there had to be special legislation concerning polygamy. Thus a husband playing favorites among his wives was not allowed to deprive the children of his first wife their inheritance rights in favor of the children of a more recent wife (Deut. 21:15â??16). Kings in particular were forbidden to multiply wives to themselves (Deut. 17:17). Unfortunately, this prohibition was often not followed.

As time progressed, the problems with polygamy became more and more obvious, and it stopped being practiced.

The clincher came in the time of Christ, when Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2. Thus Jesus prohibits divorce (Mark 10:2â??9) on the grounds that it was not provided for in Godâ??s original plan. God made one man and one woman to be together. Polygamy is ruled out by the same logic. Godâ??s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time.

Ahh welcome back Johnny we will have to bring up the thread we were talking about earlier (months ago) but for now back to plural marriage.

Please provide one scripture or teaching from Christ Himself that SPECIFICALLY mentions and condemns plural marriage, or SPECIFICALLY says plural marriage was ok at one time but not another.

Thanks

[Log]

1) Given that more women shall inherit the Kindgom of God than men, and

2) Given that neither women nor men shall be able to be fully exalted in said kindgom without each other -

polygyny, at least in the hereafter, is a logical necessity.

As any who know the true power behind the sealing ordinance can attest, to deny any human the effects of that power because of jealousy or insecurity is damnable. Moreover, as one who has seen the numbers of apparently worthy sisters, who have served missions and are yet unmarried into their forties, and the dearth of worthy men on the LDS singles sites, I really am not sympathetic at all to those who deny polygyny on any grounds.

[Calm]

1) Given that more women shall inherit the Kindgom of God than men, and

And why is this supposed to be a given?

IOW, I see no reason why it should be especially if one looks at the differences in mortality rates between male and female children below the age of 8.

[freakin a man]

My favorite arguement against the practice of polygamy is people saying there there was a lot of problems in accounts of polygamy in the Bible. Given the fact that very few one wife marriages today that go without problems, I guess this rational could be used against monogamy marriage as well.

[Log]

And why is this supposed to be a given?

IOW, I see no reason why it should be especially if one looks at the differences in mortality rates between male and female children below the age of 8.

Why is the sky blue? Some things are simply so, no matter how convenient it would be otherwise.

[docrick]

My favorite arguement against the practice of polygamy is people saying there there was a lot of problems in accounts of polygamy in the Bible. Given the fact that very few one wife marriages today that go without problems, I guess this rational could be used against monogamy marriage as well.

LOL Yeah the ol judeochristian monogamy has worked out pretty well hasn't it. The divorce rate is more than 50% isn't it.

[johnny]

docrick,

Ahh welcome back Johnny we will have to bring up the thread we were talking about earlier (months ago) but for now back to plural marriage.

Thanks for the welcome, I have been working out of state and away from the internet. Please open another thread and well continue our earlier discussion.

Please provide one scripture or teaching from Christ Himself that SPECIFICALLY mentions and condemns plural marriage, or SPECIFICALLY says plural marriage was ok at one time but not another.

Christ does not SPECIFICALLY condemn plural marriage ...

Christ does say from the beginning it has been man and wife ...

Matt.19

[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[Deborah]

Johnny at least answered the question about Abraham, even though I disagree with his conclusion.

Hopefully when we are all beyond the veil we will have a better understanding of what love and relationships mean and I think many will be surprised at how all encompassing that can be.

[Calm]

Why is the sky blue? Some things are simply so, no matter how convenient it would be otherwise.

The sky is blue because of the variation in the frequency of light and how it bounces in the atmosphere.

"Because" isn't an answer. I am asking you for your reasoning on this. If you want to say it was a personal revelation that led you to this conclusion or that you flipped a coin, fine, but there must be a reason you believe this is a given (there's certainly a big reason I think it isn't--primarily God-given agency).

[Log]

"Because" isn't an answer. I am asking you for your reasoning on this. If you want to say it was a personal revelation that led you to this conclusion or that you flipped a coin, fine, but there must be a reason you believe this is a given (there's certainly a big reason I think it isn't--primarily God-given agency).

The reasoning was laid out in the post you responded to. I have found by my own experience and examination that there are FAR more sisters worthy of a true sealing - let them who hath ears to hear, hear - than there are men able to give them one. If you are suggesting far more males die in infancy and such sufficient to balance out the male/female ratio in the hereafter, I'd love to see your data.

[thesometimesaint]

Lognormal:

For every 105 males born there are 100 females born. This statististic seems to have held for at least as long as they have kept such records.

[Log]

Lognormal:

For every 105 males born there are 100 females born. This statististic seems to have held for at least as long as they have kept such records.

I'm unsure how this information is relevant - please feel free to explain.

[Calm]

If you are suggesting far more males die in infancy and such sufficient to balance out the male/female ratio in the hereafter, I'd love to see your data.

Since you are judging the women's sprituality by appearances and not as the Lord judges, I think it is quite possible that you are jumping to conclusions. Female behaviour may have more common elements that are often identified with being more spiritual (less physically displayed temper, more attendance at religious organizations, more nurturing or nonself-centered activities) due to their more public behaviour in these areas as well as their comfort zone with being identified with spiritual characteristics which have often been seen as feminine over the centuries in societies, but since it's the motivation--the heart--behind behaviour that matters in the judgment, I think you are jumping to conclusions. A woman who attends all her meetings, makes meals and visits every sick sister in the ward, spends all her free time reading the scriptures but does this for the reason that she wants to appear righteous in the eyes of her neighbours or just because it is expected of her, but not out of a sense of personal desire isn't as spiritual in my book as a man who may not be attending all his meetings and may not do all his hometeaching, but stops by the side of the road where no one can see to help someone change a tire and who has a prayer in his heart continually and a sense of eternal gratitude to the Father.

As to the male and female infant mortality rates, that information is pretty easy to find and has been pretty consistent over the years except in areas that practice infanticide of females.

The world male infant mortality rate is 52.17 deaths/1,000 live births. The world female infant mortality rate is 48.33 deaths/1,000 live births.

http://open-site.org/Society/Death/Issues/Mortality_Rate/

This does not include the death rate of older children, but the difference is present throughout youth and may continue through life (the only thing that is making me not commit fully to this is the death rate of mothers during childbirth years). (approx. 7 more male infants die for every 1000 female births--48 female deaths and 55 male deaths, which would lead to 7 million more male infant deaths for every billion females born over time...which adds up to a hefty chuck of population if my math is right).

Include the higher male death rate with the higher birth rate of males and you have a substantial male population excess that according to LDS doctrine is CK material.

Here is an interesting article on a possibly declining male birth rate (note that it is still higher than the female, the girls outnumbering the boys in the community must be a result of the higher male mortality rates). It has the typical 105 males to 100 females ratio: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/18824/

[Brackite]

Hi there Lognormal,

You wrote:

I'm unsure how this information is relevant - please feel free to explain.

Please check out the link to this FAIR Discussion Thread:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15423&hl=

[Log]

This one is lovely.

I have been told that, despite the imbalance the infant mortality renders, females may just be so much more righteous that they'll still outnumber the males. That strikes me as a truly insulting and even sexist remark to make.

Well, since nobody knows upon what criterion I judge, though Calmoriah without knowledge has asserted I judge wrongfully - regardless of the apparent sexist nature of my view, I am just going to have to stick to it. I shall state it again - it has been my experience, upon in-depth examination, that the number of worthy females is much higher than the number of worthy males.

If this offends, so be it.

[Calm]

Well, since nobody knows upon what criterion I judge, though Calmoriah without knowledge has asserted I judge wrongfully

Since it is impossible for you to know the motivation behind the actions of most individuals around you and even those that have discussed it with you, you have to take it on trust because you do not possess the ability to read minds, I have said your ability to judge is lacking/invalid, not that you have judged wrongly.

God can see into hearts and not just the outward appearances so his judgment will be valid.

Do you not understand the problem with judging an individual's spirituality by the group they belong to? What you are implying is that women are genetically or socially programmed to be more spiritual than men. They don't choose to do good by actual choice, but because they are programmed to do so. They can't help but be good. It is rather Calvinistic actually. It is also against the idea of agency.

And even if one accepts your claim, then since men are up against a harder road to travel, the Lord will take that into account in his judgment as he would any other disabled individual. Men may achieve more spirituality if one compares where they started to where they ended than women, especially if one takes into account that women are 'gifted' in spiritual things so it's no big deal for them.

[Log]

Since it is impossible for you to know the motivation behind the actions of most individuals around you and even those that have discussed it with you, you have to take it on trust because you do not possess the ability to read minds, I have said your ability to judge is lacking/invalid, not that you have judged wrongly.

God can see into hearts and not just the outward appearances so his judgment will be valid.

Fair enough - my judgement is necessarily going to be somewhat shy of God's judgement at this time. This does not vitiate the force of my experience, neither does it change my conclusion. But it is inaccurate to say it is impossible for me to know the motivations behind the actions of most individuals around me - unless you somehow can read my mind.

I don't know that I am saying anything about women's programming, and I also don't buy into the "seperate but equal" notion of the genders. I also do not recognize the unscriptural concept of free agency. And I strongly suspect you don't quite get the idea of judgement nor what it entails.

[Calm]

I also do not recognize the unscriptural concept of free agency.

Are you LDS?

[Log]

Are you LDS?

Yes....

And before you go any farther - identify which book, chapter, and verse the phrase "free agency" occurs.

[Calm]

I made a mistake by using "free agency" when I meant "agency". "Free agency" is written by habit from my youth, not by thought.

I do not believe in free agency, but rather moral agency which I do believe is scriptural--man and woman are held responsible for his/her own actions.

I have said nothing about the "separate but equal". Your position seems to suggest 'separate but unequal'.

Do you believe that women are programmed by their genetics or their environment to be more spiritual than men?